Rapid Agrobiodiversity Appraisal (RABA) - Are you looking for one ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Rapid Agrobiodiversity Appraisal (RABA) in the Context of Environmental Service Rewards 1.2. Agrobiodiversity Agriculture refers literally to cultivating fields and normally starts with clearing fields of vegetation, which usually implies a loss of biodiversity. Yet, seen at larger temporal and spatial scale, many agricultural landscapes still contain substantial parts of the original biodiversity of pre-human vegetation – and allow for the expansion of flora and fauna of more open habitats. Many of these additions are considered to be invasive exotics, but many invasive exotics of the past have become valued 'natives', at least from a farmer's perspective. If agriculture is intensified, it tends to utilize a larger fraction of the landscape over a larger fraction of the time (reducing 'fallow' lengths), reduce crop diversity and increase the control over undesirable components of local diversity (labelled 'pests, weeds and diseases'). At some point in this process of intensification, thresholds may be crossed and ecological functions that are relevant for the farmer may be compromised (Swift et al. 2004, Vandermeer et al. 1998). It is likely, however, that this threshold of minimum diversity required for agricultural functions is substantially below the level of conservation that is desirable from a global perspective. In other words, agriculture tends to operate in a 'trade-off' zone, where intensification tends to have financial benefits but ecological costs. Reward mechanisms that help 'internalize' the global benefits at the level of the farmerdecision maker are therefore relevant and necessary. Beyond this general need for rewards, however, we realize that location-specific appraisal is needed to develop reward mechanisms that are effective, efficient and transparent. RABA is meant to be a tool in developing such reward mechanisms, based on an appraisal of the strengths, threats, opportunities and trust between partners. The interface between conservation and agriculture can be abrupt – as in the 'segregation' of protected areas from surrounding or adjacent intensive agriculture – or gradual in the form of ‘integrated' land-use forms (Tomich et al. 1998a, van Noordwijk et al. 2001a, b). In the latter, we often deal with a gradient of land-use intensities – a gradual shift from conservation to production goals. Of specific interest to the current dialogue are the 'integrated' areas that are adjacent to protected areas and those that provide landscape connectivity between protected areas. The conservation value of the 'agrobiodiversity' in such areas probably exceeds the value for the farmers per se and external rewards will be relevant to make the investment in protected areas pay off. In the continuum of exploitation and modification of forests, a threshold is past when farmers start to actively manage and plant trees and other species of high use value. This form of 'domestication of forests' can still be compatible with natural processes of establishment and growth (succession) of forest species into the 'agroforest' 3 (Michon 2005). Despite the biological and ecological similarities (Schroth et al. 2004) , there are historical, sociocultural, institutional and economic, as well as social and political differences between agroforests and forests that are exploited at community scale without tree planting. These agroforests and extensively managed forests perform many of the functions of undisturbed natural forests and can complement forests in protected areas for landscape-scale conservation (Plieninger and Wilbrand 2001, De Clerk and Negregos-Castillo 2000, Williams et al. 2001, Rasnovi and Vincent personal communication). These managed forests and agroforests are considered to be a 3 Schroth et al. (2004) show how 'artificial' agricultural land use in complex agroforestry systems might not have significantly different vegetation structure from that found in the natural state. Thus, not all agricultural land uses are disadvantageous to the preservation of natural flora and INTRODUCTION
Rapid Agrobiodiversity Appraisal (RABA) in the Context of Environmental Service Rewards relatively safe haven for 'agrobiodiversity' (Box 1), or the biodiversity that survives in an agricultural landscape. However, in most cases, the biodiversity present in managed landscapes falls far short of that in habitats that have been less altered by human use (e.g. O'Connor personal observation). Box 1. Definition of agrobiodiversity The Convention on Biological Diversity (in Parris 2001 p. 28) defines biodiversity as the variety among living organisms, including diversity within and among species and diversity within and among ecosystems. Agrobiodiversity is essentially the biodiversity present in and supported by agricultural landscapes. It includes the diversity of knowledge and management styles ('culture'). It is the source of many agro-ecosystem benefits and services that are of local value, but it can also represent global values, especially in areas that are connected to 'protected areas'. Agrobiodiversity can be considered in three levels based on: genetic diversity ('within species’): the diversity of genes within already domesticated plants and livestock species and their wild relatives; species diversity ('among species'): the number and population size of wild species (flora and fauna) surviving in agricultural landscapes, including soil biota; acknowledging the effects of non-native species on agriculture and native biodiversity; ecosystem diversity ('of ecosystems'): the ecosystems formed by biotic and abiotic interactions of species relevant to agriculture or of species and communities partially dependent on agricultural habitats. In the context of RABA, agrobiodiversity consists of both 'wild' and 'domesticated' components, from which use and non-use values are considered to be potentially important for local decision makers as well as external stakeholders. The 'agricultural intensification hypothesis' states that more intensive and productive forms of agriculture can help to reduce pressure on remnant forest. However, reviews of the evidence (van Noordwijk et al. 1995, Tomich et al. 1998a, Angelsen and Kaimowitz 2004) suggest that availability of technical options for intensification is at best a conditioning factor for forest conservation, but that only where more labour-intensive forms of agriculture provide higher returns to labour than forest extraction can a direct forest-conserving effect be expected. Agroforestry and other tree-based land-use systems will not in general meet this criterion, and can thus only contribute to conservation goals in combination with rules (or physical landscapes) that restrict access to natural forest. Yet, agroforests and similar tree-based land uses are being advocated as alternatives for maintaining the supply of environmental services, especially where forest is scarce or absent. The main importance of this type of land use is that it offers greater potential as an auxiliary tool for preserving environmental-services provision while as the same time attaining production goals (Schroth et al. 2004). With regard to biodiversity conservation, one of the specific roles of agrobiodiversity is providing habitat and resources for partially forest-dependent species that would not be able to survive in a purely agricultural landscape. This may be done by forming a suitable 'matrix' in which the 'gems' of protected areas are set and by providing corridors of connectivity by offering habitat niches for partially forestdependent species. INTRODUCTION
Page 1: Rapid Agrobiodiversity Appraisal (R
Page 4 and 5: RABA in the Context of Environmenta
Page 6 and 7: 4. Case Study 2: forest agriculture
Page 8 and 9: LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The main
Page 10 and 11: ii We started the RABA process by b
Page 12 and 13: iv Rapid Agrobiodiversity Appraisal
Page 15: 1. Introduction 1.1. The end produc
Page 20 and 21: Rapid Agrobiodiversity Appraisal (R
Page 23: 2. Rapid Agrobiodiversity Appraisal
Page 26: 08 Rapid Agrobiodiversity Appraisal
Page 29 and 30: Reward for Biodiversity Conservatio
Page 31 and 32: Box 4. Locations of biodiversity im
Page 41: Rapid Agrobiodiversity Appraisal (R
Page 45 and 46: 6 3. CASE STUDY 1: RUBBER AGROFORES
Page 49 and 50: VALUE: Rubber agroforest as a refug
Page 51 and 52: 3.2. Land-use classification and id
Page 55 and 56: there was a conflict between villag
Page 57 and 58: 3. In the implementation stage, col
Page 59 and 60: 3.4.2. Animals in rubber agroforest
Page 61 and 62: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Figure 12. Func
Page 63: • Sumatra is one of the hotspots
Page 67 and 68: 14 4. Case Study 2: Forest agricult
Page 69 and 70:
4.2. Land-use types and site select
Page 71 and 72:
15 10 3 Mae Ngan land use 2 1 1 1 4
Page 73 and 74:
4.3. Issues at local scale and stak
Page 75 and 76:
15 10 Mae Ngan land use 1 1 1 3 2 4
Page 77 and 78:
4.4.2. Identification of species ri
Page 79 and 80:
THREAT: High extinction rate 4.5. C
Page 81:
5. Concluding remarks
Page 85 and 86:
Rapid Agrobiodiversity Appraisal (R
Page 87:
Abbreviations and Acronyms Referenc
Page 90 and 91:
64 Rapid Agrobiodiversity Appraisal
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
100 Rapid Agrobiodiversity Appraisa
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
show all

Rapid Agrobiodiversity Appraisal (RABA) - Are you looking for one ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?